[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: no constants please

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 50 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 50 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

    > From: Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

    > Tom> SCHEME_UNSPECIFIC should be functions, not constants:

    > Why?

    > Tom> [...] because, you never know, those constants might be
    > Tom> heap allocated.

    > That, AFAICS, doesn't mandate the above.

Perhaps it would be clearer if I said that those constants may be
_newly_ heap allocated.

It isn't GC-safe to return values which may be unprotected from GC.

If you were to use JNI-style allocated handles for everything then
those macros could be written as specified.  I think the drawbacks to
that approach outweigh this and other minor syntactic advantages,

Anyway, why is it important to write them that way?  You can't use
them with == or !=.  Doing it your way they're just "different" from
every other value in the system apparently because of a non-portable
bias towards assuming that they are implemented as immediate values.